With regard to Slàv and Kanata, the question of the philosophical and ethical justification of non-hate but hurtful speech is examined by comparing the divergent positions of Jocelyn Maclure and John Searle, both of whom claim to be based on the theory of acts of speech. After arguing in favor of the accuracy of Searle’s position, the article suggests that the difference in the two philosophers’ stances results from a fundamental distinction between their respective conceptions of ethics.